G.R.

No. 200465. April 20, 2015.*

 
JOCELYN ASISTIO y CONSINO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES and MONICA NEALIGA,
respondents.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review

on Certiorari; As a rule, the remedy from a judgment or final order
of the Court of Appeals (CA) is appeal via petition for review under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.—As a rule, the remedy from a
judgment or final order of the CA is appeal via petition for review
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In Mercado v. Court of
Appeals, 441 SCRA 463 (2004), the Court had again stressed the
distinction between the remedies provided for under Rule 45 and
Rule 65, to wit: x x x [T]he proper remedy of a party aggrieved by
a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under
Rule 45, which is not identical to a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65. Under Rule 45, decisions, final orders or resolutions of
the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of
the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to us by filing
a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the
appellate process over the original case. On the other hand, a
special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action based
on the specific ground therein provided and, as a general rule,
cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an
ordinary appeal, including that to be taken under Rule 45.
Same; Criminal Procedure; Jurisdiction; In criminal cases,
the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the averments of the
complaint or Information, in relation to the law prevailing at the
time of the filing of the complaint or Information, and the penalty
provided by law for the crime charged at the time of its
commission.—In criminal cases, the jurisdiction of the court is
determined by the averments of the complaint or Information, in
relation to the law prevailing at the time of the filing of the
complaint or Information, and the penalty provided by law for the
crime charged at the time of its commission. Section 32 of B.P.
Blg. 129, as amended, provides that the MeTC has exclusive
jurisdiction over offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding six years, irrespective of the amount of
_______________

*  THIRD DIVISION.

257

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 257

Asistio vs. People

fine: Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,

Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
Criminal Cases.—Except in cases falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the
Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: x x x x
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable
with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective
of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable
accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising
from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind,
nature, value or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in
offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof.
Same; Same; Same; Regional Trial Courts; Offenses
punishable with imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, irrespective
of the amount of fine, fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), in accordance with Section 20
of Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 129, as amended.—Offenses
punishable with imprisonment exceeding six years, irrespective of
the amount of fine, fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the RTC, in accordance with Section 20 of B.P. Blg. 129, as
amended: Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases.—Regional
Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and
concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall
hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.
Same; Same; Conciliation; Mediation; Conciliation or
mediation is not a prerequisite to the filing of a criminal case for
violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 6938 against petitioner, because
such case is not an intra-cooperative dispute.—On whether the
rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies was violated when
the Cooperative filed a criminal case against petitioner without
undergoing conciliation/mediation proceedings pursuant to the
Cooperative Code and the Bylaws of the Cooperative, the Court
rules in the negative. Conciliation or mediation is not a
prerequisite to the filing of a criminal case for violation of RA
6938 against petitioner, because such case is not an intra-
cooperative dispute. As aptly pointed out by the CA: Neither can
the accused-appellee insist that this is an intra-

258

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asistio vs. People

cooperative dispute and should have been resolved at the

cooperative level. As aptly argued by the People, this is not an
intra-cooperative dispute. Intra-cooperative dispute is a dispute
arising between or among members of the same cooperative. The
instant case is a dispute between the Cooperative and its former
chairperson, the accused-appellee. The Board Resolution
authorizing the filing of the criminal complaint by the Board of
Directors, for and in behalf of the Cooperative, is proof that this is
not an intra-cooperative dispute, and within the jurisdiction of the
regular court.
Same; Same; Prosecution of Offenses; Civil Liability; It is
well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the
State, the interest of the private complainant or the private
offended party is limited to the civil liability, and her role in the
prosecution of the offense is limited to that of a witness for the
prosecution.—It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the
offended party is the State, the interest of the private
complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil
liability, and her role in the prosecution of the offense is limited to
that of a witness for the prosecution. In petitioner’s criminal case
for violation of Section 46 of RA 6938, the State is the real
offended party, while the Cooperative and its members are mere
private complainants and witnesses whose interests are limited to
the civil aspect thereof. Clearly, such criminal case can hardly be
considered an intra-cooperative dispute, as it is not one arising
between or among members of the same cooperative.
Same; Same; Double Jeopardy; On whether the remand of the
criminal case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) violated her right
against double jeopardy due to its earlier dismissal on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction, the Court rules in the negative and upholds
the Court of Appeals (CA) in ruling that the dismissal having been
granted upon petitioner’s instance, double jeopardy did not attach.
—On whether the remand of the criminal case to the RTC
violated her right against double jeopardy due to its earlier
dismissal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the Court rules in
the negative and upholds the CA in ruling that the dismissal
having been granted upon petitioner’s instance, double jeopardy
did not attach.
 Same; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Prosecution of Offenses;
Res judicata is a doctrine of civil law and thus has no bearing on
criminal proceedings.—At the outset, res judicata is a doctrine of
civil law and

259

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 259

Asistio vs. People

  thus has no bearing on criminal proceedings. At any rate,

petitioner’s argument is incidentally related to double jeopardy
which embraces a prohibition against being tried for any offense
which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
offense charged in the former complaint or information.
Same; Same; Double Jeopardy; Requisites of.—Section 7 of
Rule 117 lays down the requisites in order that the defense of
double jeopardy may prosper. There is double jeopardy when the
following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior
to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated;
and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. As
to the first requisite, the first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a
valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after
arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e)
when the accused was acquitted or convicted, or the case was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Same; Same; Same; Verily, there is nothing common or
similar between the essential elements of the crimes of falsification
of private document under Article 172(2) of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) and that of violation of Section 46 of Republic Act (RA) No.
6938, as alleged in the Informations filed against petitioner.—
Verily, there is nothing common or similar between the essential
elements of the crimes of falsification of private document under
Article 172(2) of the RPC and that of violation of Section 46 of RA
6938, as alleged in the Informations filed against petitioner. As
neither of the said crimes can be said to necessarily include or is
necessarily included in the other, the third requisite for double
jeopardy to attach — a second jeopardy is for the same offense as
in the first — is, therefore, absent. Not only are their elements
different, they also have a distinct nature, i.e., the former is
malum in se, as what makes it a felony is criminal intent on the
part of the offender, while the latter is malum prohibitum, as
what makes it a crime is the special law enacting it.
Same; Same; It is basic in criminal procedure that an accused
may be charged with as many crimes as defined in our penal laws
even if these arose from one incident.—Since the Informations filed
against petitioner were for separate and distinct offenses as
discussed above — the first against Article 172(2) of the Revised
Penal Code and the second against Section 46 of the Cooperative
Code (RA

260

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asistio vs. People

6938) — one cannot be pleaded as a bar to the other under

the rule on double jeopardy. Besides, it is basic in criminal
procedure that an accused may be charged with as many crimes
as defined in our penal laws even if these arose from one incident.
Thus, where a single act is directed against one person but said
act constitutes a violation of two or more entirely distinct and
unrelated provisions of law, or by a special law and the Revised
Penal Code, as in this case, the prosecution against one is not an
obstacle to the prosecution of the other.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Federico D. Ricafort for petitioner.

 
PERALTA, J.:
 
Assailed in this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court are the Court of Appeals’ (CA) Decision1
dated August 31, 2011 and its Resolution2 dated January
31, 2012 in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 32363. The dispositive portion
of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Orders

dated 14 October 2008 and 12 February 2009 of Branch 40,
Regional Trial Court of Manila, in Criminal Case No. 01-197750,
are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, let the
records of this case be REMANDED to Branch 40 of the Regional
Trial Court of Manila, for further appropriate proceedings.
SO ORDERED.3

 
The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows:

_______________
 1  Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with Associate Justices
Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Socorro B. Inting, concurring; Rollo, pp.
38-51.
2  Id., at pp. 52-53. (Emphasis in the original)
3  Id., at pp. 50-51. (Emphasis in the original)

261

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 261

Asistio vs. People

Petitioner Jocelyn Asistio y Consino was charged with

violation of Section 46 of the Cooperative Code of the
Philippines (Republic Act No. [RA] 6938).4 The accusatory
portion of the Information filed against her reads:

That on or about July 27, 1998, in the City of Manila,

Philippines, the said accused, being then the Chairperson and
Managing Director of A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers
Multi-Purpose Cooperative, and as such, have a complete control
and exclusively manage the entire business of A. Mabini
Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously acquires, in
violation of her duty as such and the confidence reposed on her,
personal interest or equity adverse to A. Mabini Elementary
School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative by then and there
entering into a contract with Coca-Cola Products at A. Mabini
Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative in her
own personal capacity when in truth and in fact as the said
accused fully well knew, the sale of Coca-Cola products at A.
Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative
should have accrued to A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers
Multi-Purpose Cooperative

_______________

4  Section 46. Liability of Directors, Officers and Committee Members.

—Directors, officers and committee members, who willfully and
knowingly vote for or assent to patently unlawful acts or who are guilty
of gross negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the cooperative
or acquire any personal or pecuniary interest in conflict with
their duty as such directors, officers or committee member shall be
liable jointly and severally for all damages or profits resulting therefrom
to the cooperative, members and other persons.
When a director, officer or committee member attempts to acquire or
acquires, in violation of his duty, any interest or equity adverse to the
cooperative in respect to any matter which has been reposed in him in
confidence, he shall, as a trustee for the cooperative, be liable for damages
and for double the profits which otherwise would have accrued to the
cooperative. (Emphasis ours)

262

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asistio vs. People

  to the damage and prejudice of A. Mabini Elementary School

Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5

 
Upon her arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of “not
guilty.”
Trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution sought to prove that petitioner, then
Chairperson of the A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers
Multi-Purpose Cooperative, had entered into an exclusive
dealership agreement with Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines,
Inc. (Coca-Cola) for the sale of softdrink products at the
same school. By virtue of a Memorandum of Agreement
between the school and the Cooperative, Dr. Nora T.
Salamanca, the school principal, directed petitioner to
submit her financial reports during her tenure as
Chairperson. Instead, petitioner claimed that the principal
had no business and authority to require her to produce
financial statements, and that the said reports had been
posted on the school bulletin board.
The school principal then created an audit committee to
look into the financial reports of the Cooperative. The
committee was composed of Aurora Catabona
(Chairperson), Monica Nealiga (member), with Noemi
Olazo (Chairperson-auditor) and Sylvia Apostol (auditor),
who later executed their respective affidavits in support of
the charge against petitioner. Based on the documents
obtained from Coca-Cola, including the records of actual
deliveries and sales, and the financial statements prepared
by petitioner, the audit committee found that petitioner
defrauded the Cooperative and its members for three (3)
years in the following amounts: School Year (S.Y.) 1998-
1999 – P54,008.00; S.Y. 1999-2000 – P40,503.00; and S.Y.
2000-2001 – P8,945.00. Despite requests for her to return
to the Cooperative the amounts she had allegedly
misappropriated, petitioner failed and refused to do so.
Thus,

_______________
 5  Rollo, p. 39.

263

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 263

Asistio vs. People

the Cooperative issued a Board Resolution authorizing

the filing of criminal charges against petitioner.
After the presentation and offer of evidence by the
prosecution, petitioner moved to dismiss the case by way of
Demurrer to Evidence with prior leave of court. She
argued, among other matters, that the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 40, does not have
jurisdiction over the case, as the crime charged (Violation
of Section 46 of RA 6938) does not carry with it a sanction
for which she can be held criminally liable.
On October 14, 2008, the RTC dismissed the case for
lack of jurisdiction, thus:

Considering that the MeTCs, MTC, MCTCs have exclusive

original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the
amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or
other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such
offense or predicated thereon, and considering that violation of
[Sec.] 46 of R.A. 6938 would be punishable by imprisonment of not
less than six (6) months nor more than one (1) year and a fine of
not less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or both at the
discretion of the Court, this Court (RTC) has no jurisdiction to
hear and determine the instant case which properly pertains to
the first level courts.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds and
holds that it has no jurisdiction over the offense charged.
Accordingly, the instant case is hereby DISMISSED. This Court
having no jurisdiction, further discussions over the defense’
allegation that there was a violation of the principle of primary
jurisdiction and that the private complainants used a falsified
resolution to purposely empower them to file the instant case
become moot and academic.
IT IS SO ORDERED.6

_______________

6  Id., at pp. 34-35. (Emphasis in the original)

264
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Asistio vs. People

On February 12, 2009, the RTC denied for lack of merit

the private prosecutor’s motion for a reconsideration of the
order of dismissal.7 The RTC held:

Nowhere in said [Sec.] 46 of R.A. 6938 does it provide for penal

sanctions/liability for violation of acts or omission prescribed
therein. If ever, the liability is only for damages and for double
the profits which otherwise would have accrued to the
cooperative. It is a fundamental rule in law that an act or
omission is not a crime unless there is a law making it so and
providing a penalty therefor. Otherwise put, the facts charged in
the information do not charge an offense. And even assuming
arguendo that they do constitute an offense, the penalty therefor
is that provided under paragraph 4 of [Section] 124 of R.A. [6938]
which is “imprisonment of not less than six (6) months nor more
than one (1) year and a fine of not less than one thousand pesos
(P1,000.00), or both at the discretion of the court,” which falls
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the first, not the second level
court.
Another factor which strongly militates against the cause of
the prosecution is the undisputed fact that before this case was
filed in Court, conciliation/mediation process for the amicable
settlement of the dispute was not availed of by the private
complainants who are all members (directors) of the A. Mabini
Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative in
accordance with the bylaws of the Cooperative and the
Cooperative Code itself and the Guidelines for the
Implementation of Conciliation/Mediation of Cooperative dispute
(Memo Circular No. 2007-05, Series of 2007). The dispute
involving the parties is certainly a dispute and issue between and
among directors, officers or members of the A. Mabini Elementary
School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative which is governed by
the Guidelines.
Prior availment and exhaustion of administrative remedies
until the Office of the President as outlined in the Cooperative
Code and in its implementing rules not

_______________

7  Id., at pp. 36-37.

265

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 265

Asistio vs. People
  

having been resorted to by the complainants, the rule on

primary jurisdiction was violated and this Court acquired no
jurisdiction to hear and determine the present case.8

 
Dissatisfied, the People of the Philippines, represented
by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the
order of dismissal to the CA.
On August 31, 2011, the CA rendered a Decision
reversing and setting aside the RTC Orders dated October
14, 2008 and February 12, 2009 and remanded the case
records to the RTC for further proceedings. On January 31,
2012, the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
of its decision.9
Aggrieved, petitioner filed this petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, raising the following
issues:

1. WHETHER IN REVERSING THE REGIONAL TRIAL

COURT’S DECISION OF DISMISSAL, HAS THE HON. COURT
OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE
CLEAN, UNAMBIGUO[U]S AND CATEGORICAL PROVISION
OF PARAGRAPH 4 OF [SECTION] 124 OF RA 6938 IN
REFERENCE TO THE PENAL SANCTION FOR VIOLATION
OF [SEC.] 46 OF THE COOPERATIVE [CODE], RA 6938 AND
ADOPTING FOR ITS DECISION ONE DERIVED FROM ITS
INTERPRETATION OF A SUPPOSED STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION WHICH INTERPRETATION, EVEN
SUBJECT PETITIONER TO A HIGHER PENALTY OF 5 YEARS
TO 10 YRS. WHICH WAS TO JUSTIFY THAT THE RTC
SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE CASE AND USED IT
AS A GROUND TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE HON.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT.
2. WHETHER THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS IGNORED
THE OTHER GROUNDS ASSIGNED FOR THE DISMISSAL OF
THE CRIMINAL CHARGE OTHER

_______________

8  Id.
9  Id., at pp. 52-53.

266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asistio vs. People
 THAN THE VIOLATION OF [SECTION] 46 OF RA 6938,
(COOPERATIVE CODE). THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF
THE RULE ON PRIMARY JURISDICTION — EXHAUSTION
OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN THE COOPERATIVE
LEVEL BEFORE GOING TO COURT.
3. WHETHER THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS’ ORDER
REMANDING THE CASE BACK TO THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IGNORED THE RULE
THAT DISMISSAL OF THE CHARGE ON DEMURRER TO
EVIDENCE AMOUNTS TO AN ACQUITTAL, AND THE
DISMISSAL IS NOT APPEALABLE.
4. WHETHER REMANDING THE CASE BACK TO THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
SUBJECT THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED TO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY AND TO HIGHER PENALTY HAS NOT BEEN
CONSIDERED.
5. [WHETHER THE RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION THAT
A NEW AND AMENDED COOPERATIVE CODE RA 9520
COULD POSSIBLE APPLY TO THIS CASE AGAINST THE
PETITIONER, VIOLATIVE OF EXPOSE (SIC) FACTO LAW.]10

 
The petition has no merit.
Prefatorily, the Court notes that petitioner filed a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court, as amended, instead of an appeal by certiorari
under Rule 45, which the OSG points out as the proper
remedy to assail the CA decision.
Petitioner asserts that she filed the petition pursuant to
Rule 65, because the assailed CA decision is tainted with
grave abuse of discretion. She posits that the Court ordered
the exclusion of the CA as one of the party respondents,
and considered the petition as one filed under Rule 45,
since the

_______________

10  Id., at pp. 14-15.

267

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 267

Asistio vs. People

focal issue raised in the petition is a question of law

calling for an interpretation of Sections 46 and 124 of RA
6938, in relation to Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129, or the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by RA
7691. She adds that had she chosen to file an appeal by
certiorari, the Court would be faced with the same question
of law.
Petitioner’s contentions are untenable.
As a rule, the remedy from a judgment or final order of
the CA is appeal via petition for review under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court.11 In Mercado v. Court of Appeals,12 the
Court had again stressed the distinction between the
remedies provided for under Rule 45 and Rule 65, to wit:

x x x [T]he proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of

the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45, which
is not identical to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Under
Rule 45, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of
Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or
proceedings involved, may be appealed to us by filing a petition
for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate
process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil
action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the
specific ground therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be
availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary
appeal, including that to be taken under Rule 45. x x x.13

 
In Artistica Ceramica, Inc. v. Ciudad Del Carmen
Homeowner’s Association, Inc.,14 the Court explained that
one of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no
available appeal or

_______________

11   Artistica Ceramica, Inc. v. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner’s

Association, Inc., 635 Phil. 21, 30; 621 SCRA 22, 29 (2010).
12  484 Phil. 438; 441 SCRA 463 (2004).
13  Id., at p. 444; p. 469.
14   Artistica Ceramica, Inc. v. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner’s
Association, Inc., supra.

268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asistio vs. People

any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an

appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the
ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. It is also well-
settled that a party cannot file a petition both under Rules
45 and 65 of the Rules of Court because said procedural
rules pertain to different remedies and have distinct
applications. The remedy of appeal under Rule 45 and the
original action for certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually
exclusive and not alternative or cumulative. Thus, when
petitioner adopts an improper remedy, petition may be
dismissed outright.
However, the Court may set aside technicality for
justifiable reasons as when the petition before it is clearly
meritorious and filed on time both under Rules 45 and 65.15
In accordance with the liberal spirit which pervades the
Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, the Court may
treat the petition as having been filed under Rule 45. Here,
no justifiable reasons were proffered by petitioner for a
more liberal interpretation of procedural rules. Although it
was filed on time both under Rules 45 and 65, the petition
at bench lacks substantive merit and raises only questions
of law which should have been duly made in a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45.16
On the substantive issue of which court has jurisdiction
over petitioner’s criminal case for violation of Section 46
(Liability of Directors, Officers and Committee Members) of
RA 6938, the Court affirms the CA ruling that it is the
RTC, not the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), which has
jurisdiction over her case.
In criminal cases, the jurisdiction of the court is
determined by the averments of the complaint or
Information, in relation to the law prevailing at the time of
the filing of the

_______________

15   International Corporate Bank, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 532 Phil.

479, 487-488; 501 SCRA 20, 28 (2006).
16  Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, G.R. No. 156358, August 17, 2011, 655
SCRA 553, 569.

269

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 269

Asistio vs. People

complaint or Information, and the penalty provided by

law for the crime charged at the time of its commission.17
Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, provides that the
MeTC has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses punishable
with imprisonment not exceeding six years, irrespective of
the amount of fine:
 Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal
Cases.—Except in cases falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan,
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
x x x x
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years
irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability
arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of
kind, nature, value or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in
offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof.
(Emphasis added)

 
Offenses punishable with imprisonment exceeding six
years, irrespective of the amount of fine, fall under the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC, in accordance
with Section 20 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended:

Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases.—Regional Trial

Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal
cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction

_______________

17   Guinhawa v. People, 505 Phil. 383, 401-402; 468 SCRA 278, 299
(2005).

270

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asistio vs. People

of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under

the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the
latter.

 
Petitioner insists that Section 46 (Liability of Directors,
Officers and Committee Members) of RA 6938 provides
only for a civil liability but not a criminal sanction, hence,
the MeTC has jurisdiction over her criminal case which is
punishable under paragraph 4 of Section 124:

Section 124. Penal Provisions.—The following acts or

omissions affecting cooperatives are hereby prohibited:
(4) Any violation of any provision of this Code for
which no penalty is imposed shall be punished by
imprisonment of not less than six (6) months nor more
than one (1) year and a fine of not less than One thousand pesos
(P1,000.00), or both at the discretion of the court. (Emphasis
added)

 
Petitioner argues that the provisions of Section 46
(Liability of Directors, Officers and Committee Members),
Section 47 (Compensation) and Section 124 (Penal
Provisions) of RA 6938, are plain, unambiguous, and
categorical. She submits that statutory construction of such
clear provisions, especially if prejudicial to her rights as an
accused and would subject her to higher penalty, should
not be allowed.
On the other hand, the OSG maintains that the RTC has
jurisdiction over petitioner’s case pursuant to paragraph 3
of Section 124 of RA 6938:

(3) A director, officer or committee member who

violated the provisions of Section 47 (liability of directors,
officers and committee members), Section 50 (disloyalty of a
director) and Section 51 (illegal use of confidential information)
shall upon conviction suf-

271

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 271

Asistio vs. People

fer a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00), or

imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not more
than ten (10) years or both at the court’s discretion.
(Emphasis supplied)

 
The OSG points out that Section “47” in the above
quoted provision is a clerical error because the “liability of
directors, officers and committee members” is undisputedly
governed by Section 46 of RA 6938, while Section 47
thereof deals with the compensation of directors, officers
and employees, to wit:
 Section 46. Liability of Directors, Officers and
Committee Members.—Directors, officers and committee
members, who willfully and knowingly vote for or assent to
patently unlawful acts or who are guilty of gross negligence or bad
faith in directing the affairs of the cooperative or acquire any
personal or pecuniary interest in conflict with their duty as such
directors, officers or committee member shall be liable jointly and
severally for all damages or profits resulting therefrom to the
cooperative, members and other persons.
When a director, officer or committee member attempts to
acquire or acquires, in violation of his duty, any interest or equity
adverse to the cooperative in respect to any matter which has
been reposed in him in confidence, he shall, as a trustee for the
cooperative, be liable for damages and for double the profits which
otherwise would have accrued to the cooperative.
Section 47. Compensation.—(1) In the absence of any
provision in the bylaws fixing their compensation, the directors
shall not receive any compensation except for reasonable per
diem: Provided, That any compensation other than per diems may
be granted to directors by a majority vote of the members with
voting rights at a regular or special general assembly meeting
specifically called for the purpose: Provided, further, that no
additional compensation other than per diems shall be paid
during the first year of existence of any cooperative.

272

272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asistio vs. People

The Court sustains the OSG’s contention. Petitioner

failed to present any compelling reason to warrant a
departure from the exhaustive CA ruling on why the RTC,
not the MeTC, has jurisdiction over her criminal case for
violation of Section 46 of RA 6938, thus:

The Court, in order to carry out the obvious intent of the

legislature, may correct clerical errors, mistakes or misprints
which, if uncorrected, would render the statute meaningless,
empty or nonsensical or would defeat or impair its intended
operation, so long as the meaning intended is apparent on the face
of the whole enactment and no specific provision is abrogated. To
correct the error or mistake is to prevent the nullification of the
statute and give it a meaning and purpose. For it is the duty of
the court to give a statute a sensible construction, one that will
effectuate legislative intent and avoid injustice or absurdity. It is
its duty to arrive at the legislative intent and in doing so, it
should not adopt an arbitrary rule under which it must be held
without variance or shadow of turning the legislature intended to
make a typographical error, the result of which would be to make
nonsense of the act, and not to carry out the legislative scheme,
but to destroy it.
x x x x
Clearly, the accused-appellee cannot insist that reference to
[Sec.] 124, paragraph 4, as the trial court did, is necessary and
therefore, warranted the dismissal of the criminal case for lack of
jurisdiction. To reiterate, [Sec.] 46 of the Code, entitled “Liability
of Directors, Officers, and Committee Members,” provides for
violations under which the said officers could be held liable for,
and the corresponding liability for damages and profits from the
said violations. Since the said [section] does not provide for penal
sanction, an application of [Sec.] 124, paragraph 3 should follow
as the said provision evidently refers to the penal sanction on
erring directors, officers and committee members. It would
make no sense if we were to follow what clearly appears to be a
clerical error, that is, applying [Sec.] 124, paragraph 4 instead,
just be-

273

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 273

Asistio vs. People

cause paragraph 3 of the same [section] refers to [Sec.] 47,

which upon examination of the Code provides for the
“Compensation” of the directors, officers and other employees of
the cooperative.
We, thus, agree with the contention of the People that [Section]
124(3) should refer to “[Section] 46 (Liability of Directors, Officers
and Committee Members, [Section] 49 (Disloyalty of a Director)
and [Section] 51 (Illegal use of confidential information).”
Following this interpretation, violation of [Sec.] 46, therefore, is
punishable by a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos
(P5,000.00), or imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but
not more than ten (10) years or both at the court’s discretion,
which under B.P. Blg. 129, shall be within the jurisdiction of the
RTC.18

 
It may not be amiss to point out that the clerical error
noted by the OSG in Section 124(3) of RA 6938 on the
liability of directors, officers and committee members, has
been recognized and duly corrected when the legislature
enacted RA 9520, entitled “An Act Amending the
Cooperative Code of the Philippines to be known as the
Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008.” Pertinent portions of
the corrected provision read:

ART. 45. Liability of Directors, Officers and Committee

Members.—Directors, officers and committee members, who are
willfully and knowingly vote for or assent to patently unlawful
acts or who are guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing
the affairs of the cooperative or acquire any personal or pecuniary
interest in conflict with their duty as such directors, officers or
committee members shall be liable jointly and severally for all
damages or profits resulting therefrom to the cooperative,
members, and other persons.
x x x x
ART. 140. Penal Provisions.—The following acts or omissions
affecting cooperatives are hereby prohibited:

_______________

18  Rollo, pp. 46-48. (Citations omitted)

274

274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asistio vs. People

x x x x
(5) A director, officer or committee member who violated the
provisions of Article 45 on the Liability of Directors, Officers
and Committee Members, Article 48 on the Disloyalty of a
Director, and Article 49 on the Illegal Use of Confidential
Information shall upon conviction suffer a fine of not less than
Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) or imprisonment of not
less than five (5) years but not more than ten (10) years or both at
the court’s discretion. [Emphasis added]

 
On whether the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies was violated when the Cooperative filed a
criminal case against petitioner without undergoing
conciliation/mediation proceedings pursuant to the
Cooperative Code and the Bylaws of the Cooperative, the
Court rules in the negative. Conciliation or mediation is not
a prerequisite to the filing of a criminal case for violation of
RA 6938 against petitioner, because such case is not an
intra-cooperative dispute. As aptly pointed out by the CA:

Neither can the accused-appellee insist that this is an intra-

cooperative dispute and should have been resolved at the
cooperative level. As aptly argued by the People, this is not an
intra-cooperative dispute. Intra-cooperative dispute is a dispute
arising between or among members of the same cooperative. The
instant case is a dispute between the Cooperative and its former
chairperson, the accused-appellee. The Board Resolution
authorizing the filing of the criminal complaint by the Board of
Directors, for and in behalf of the Cooperative, is proof that this is
not an intra-cooperative dispute, and within the jurisdiction of the
regular court.19

_______________

19  Id., at p. 49.

275

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 275

Asistio vs. People

Moreover, it is well-settled that in criminal cases where

the offended party is the State, the interest of the private
complainant or the private offended party is limited to the
civil liability, and her role in the prosecution of the offense
is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution.20 In
petitioner’s criminal case for violation of Section 46 of RA
6938, the State is the real offended party, while the
Cooperative and its members are mere private
complainants and witnesses whose interests are limited to
the civil aspect thereof. Clearly, such criminal case can
hardly be considered an intra-cooperative dispute, as it is
not one arising between or among members of the same
cooperative.
On whether the dismissal of the charge against
petitioner on demurrer to evidence amounts to an
acquittal, hence, final and unappealable, the Court rules in
the negative.
In Gutib v. Court of Appeals,21 the Court stressed that
demurrer to the evidence is an objection by one of the
parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which
his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law,
whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the
issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of
the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. The Court, in
passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a
demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether there is
competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment
or to support a verdict of guilt.
 In People v. Sandiganbayan,22 the Court explained the
general rule that the grant of a demurrer to evidence
operates as an acquittal and is, thus, final and
unappealable, to wit:

The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as the one at

bar, is “filed after the prosecution had rested its case,” and when
the same is granted, it calls “for an ap-

_______________

20  People v. Santiago, 255 Phil. 851, 861; 174 SCRA 143, 152 (1989).
21  371 Phil. 293, 300; 312 SCRA 365, 371 (1999).
22  488 Phil. 293; 447 SCRA 291 (2004).

276

276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asistio vs. People

preciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and its

sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubt,
resulting in a dismissal of the case on the merits, tantamount to
an acquittal of the accused.” Such dismissal of a criminal case by
the grant of demurrer to evidence may not be appealed, for to do
so would be to place the accused in double jeopardy. The verdict
being one of acquittal, the case ends there.23

 
In this case, however, the RTC granted the demurrer to
evidence and dismissed the case not for insufficiency of
evidence, but for lack of jurisdiction over the offense
charged. Notably, the RTC did not decide the case on the
merits, let alone resolve the issue of petitioner’s guilt or
innocence based on the evidence proffered by the
prosecution. This being the case, the October 14, 2008 RTC
Order of dismissal does not operate as an acquittal, hence,
may still be subject to ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court.24 As aptly noted by the CA:

The accused-appellee is also of a mistaken view that the

dismissal of the case against her is an acquittal. It should be
emphasized that “acquittal is always based on the merits, that is,
the defendant is acquitted because the evidence does not show
that the defendant’s guilt is beyond reasonable doubt; but
dismissal does not decide the case on the merits or that the
defendant is not guilty. Dismissal terminates the proceeding,
either because the court is not a court of competent jurisdiction, or
the evidence does not show that the offense was committed within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the

_______________

23  Id., at pp. 309-310; pp. 307-308. (Italics in the original)

24   Section 1. Subject of appeal.—An appeal may be taken from a
judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a
particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.
x x x

277

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 277

Asistio vs. People

complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in form and

substance, etc.”25

 
On whether the remand of the criminal case to the RTC
violated her right against double jeopardy due to its earlier
dismissal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the Court
rules in the negative and upholds the CA in ruling that the
dismissal having been granted upon petitioner’s instance,
double jeopardy did not attach, thus:

The accused-appellee cannot also contend that she will be

placed in double jeopardy upon this appeal. It must be stressed
that the dismissal of the case against her was premised upon her
filing of a demurrer to evidence, and the finding, albeit erroneous,
of the trial court that it is bereft of jurisdiction.
The requisites that must be present for double jeopardy to
attach are: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) a court of
competent jurisdiction; (c) the accused has pleaded to the charge;
and (d) the accused has been convicted or acquitted or the case
dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the
accused.
Definitely, there is no double jeopardy in this case as the
dismissal was with the accused-appellee’s consent, that is, by
moving for the dismissal of the case through a demurrer to
evidence. As correctly argued by the People, where the dismissal
was ordered upon or with express assent of the accused, he is
deemed to have waived his protection against doubly jeopardy. In
this case at bar, the dismissal was granted upon motion of
petitioners. Double jeopardy, thus, did not attach.26
  
The Court also finds no merit in petitioner’s new
argument that the prosecution of her case before the RTC
for violation of Section 46 of RA 6938 in Criminal Case No.
07-197750 is

_______________

25  Rollo, p. 50.
26  Id., at pp. 49-50. (Citations omitted)

278

278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asistio vs. People

barred by res judicata because the MeTC of Manila,

Branch 22, in a Resolution27 dated August 13, 2012,
granted her demurrer to evidence and acquitted her in a
criminal case for falsification of private document in
Criminal Case No. 370119-20-CR.28 In support of her
flawed argument, petitioner points out that the private
complainants [officers and directors of the Cooperative] and
the subject matter [unreported sales profits of Coca-Cola
products] of both cases are the same, and that the case for
violation of Section 46 of RA 6938 is actually and
necessarily included in the case for falsification of private
documents.
At the outset, res judicata is a doctrine of civil law and
thus has no bearing on criminal proceedings.29 At any rate,
petitioner’s argument is incidentally related to double
jeopardy which embraces a prohibition against being tried
for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in the offense charged in the former complaint or
information.
Section 730 of Rule 117 lays down the requisites in order
that the defense of double jeopardy may prosper. There is
double jeopardy when the following requisites are present:
(1) a first jeop-

_______________

27  Annex “A” of Reply to Comment, id., at pp. 106-134.

28  Id., at pp. 126-130.
29  Trinidad v. Office of the Ombudsman, 564 Phil. 382, 389; 539 SCRA
415, 424 (2007).
30   SEC. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy.—When
an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court
of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other
formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and
after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of
the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another
prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same
or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is
necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or
information.

279

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 279

Asistio vs. People

ardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy

has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is
for the same offense as in the first.31 As to the first
requisite, the first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid
indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after
arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and
(e) when the accused was acquitted or convicted, or the case
was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent.32
In this case, there is no dispute that the first and second
requisites of double jeopardy are present in view of the
MeTC Resolution33 dated August 13, 2012 which granted
petitioner’s demurrer to evidence and acquitted her in a
criminal case for falsification of private document in
Criminal Case No. 370119-20-CR. Petitioner’s argument
dwells on whether the third requisite of double jeopardy —
a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first — is
present. Such question of identity or lack of identity of
offenses is addressed by examining the essential elements
of each of the two offenses charged, as such elements are
set out in the respective legislative definitions of the
offense involved.34
Thus, the remaining question to be resolved is whether
the offense charged in the information for Section 46 of RA
6938 necessarily includes or is necessarily included in a
crime for falsification of private document under Article
172 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended (RPC). The test
to determine whether an offense necessarily includes or is
necessarily included in the other is provided under Section
5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court:

_______________
 31   People v. Cawaling, 355 Phil. 1, 24; 293 SCRA 267, 292 (1998),
citing Guerrero v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 496, 506; 257 SCRA 703, 712
(1996) and People v. Leviste, 325 Phil. 525, 537; 255 SCRA 238, 249 (1996).
32  Pacoy v. Cajigal, 560 Phil. 598, 612; 534 SCRA 338, 352 (2007).
33  Annex “A” of Reply to Comment, Rollo, pp. 106-134.
34  People v. Relova, No. L-45129, March 6, 1987, 148 SCRA 292, 306.

280

280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asistio vs. People

An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved

when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former,
as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter.
And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense
proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or
form part of those constituting the latter.

 
After a careful examination of the Informations filed
against petitioner for falsification of private document in
Criminal Case No. 370119-20-CR and for violation of
Section 46, RA 6938 in Criminal Case No. 01-197750, the
Court holds that the first offense for which petitioner was
acquitted does not necessarily include and is not
necessarily included in the second offense.
The Information for falsification of private document, on
the one hand, alleged that petitioner, being then the
Chairperson and Managing Director of A. Mabini
Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, as
part of her duty to prepare financial reports, falsified such
report for the School Year 1999-2000, in relation to the
sales profits of Coca-Cola products in violation of Article
172(2)35 of the RPC. The elements of falsification of private
document under Article 172, paragraph 2 of the RPC are:
(1) that the offender committed any of the acts of
falsification, except those in paragraph 7,

_______________

35   Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified

documents.—The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon:
x x x x
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent
to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the
acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.
x x x

281

VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 281

Asistio vs. People

Article 171;36 (2) that the falsification was committed in

any private document; and (3) that the falsification caused
damage to a third party or at least the falsification was
committed with intent to cause such damage.
The Information for violation of Section 46 of RA 6938
alleged, on the other hand, that being then such officer and
director of the Cooperative, petitioner willfully acquired
personal interest or equity adverse to it, in violation of her
duty and of the confidence reposed upon her, by entering
into a contract with Coca-Cola in her own personal
capacity, knowing fully well that the sales profits of such
products should have accrued to the Cooperative. The
essential elements of violation of Section 46 of RA 6938 are
(1) that the offender is a director, officer or committee
member; and (2) that the offender willfully and knowingly
(a) votes for or assents to patently unlawful acts; (b) is
guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing the
affairs of the cooperative; or (c) acquires any personal or
pecuniary interest in conflict with their duty as such
directors, officers or committee member.
Verily, there is nothing common or similar between the
essential elements of the crimes of falsification of private
document under Article 172(2) of the RPC and that of
violation of Section 46 of RA 6938, as alleged in the
Informations filed against petitioner. As neither of the said
crimes can be said to necessarily include or is necessarily
included in the other, the

_______________

36   Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or

ecclesiastic minister.—The penalty of prisión mayor and a fine not to
exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or
notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a
document by committing any of the following acts:
x x x x
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a
copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in
such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine
original.
 x x x

282

282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Asistio vs. People

third requisite for double jeopardy to attach — a second

jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first — is,
therefore, absent. Not only are their elements different,
they also have a distinct nature, i.e., the former is malum
in se, as what makes it a felony is criminal intent on the
part of the offender, while the latter is malum prohibitum,
as what makes it a crime is the special law enacting it.
Moreover, in People v. Doriguez,37 the Court held:

It is a cardinal rule that the protection against double jeopardy

may be invoked only for the same offense or identical offenses. A
simple act may offend against two (or more) entirely distinct and
unrelated provisions of law, and if one provision requires proof of
an additional fact or element which the other does not, an
acquittal or conviction or a dismissal of the information under one
does not bar prosecution under the other. Phrased elsewise, where
two different laws (or articles of the same code) defines two
crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a
prosecution of the other, although both offenses arise from the
same fact, if each crime involves some important act which is not
an essential element of the other.38

Since the Informations filed against petitioner were for
separate and distinct offenses as discussed above — the
first against Article 172(2) of the Revised Penal Code and
the second against Section 46 of the Cooperative Code (RA
6938) — one cannot be pleaded as a bar to the other under
the rule on double jeopardy. Besides, it is basic in criminal
procedure that an accused may be charged with as many
crimes as defined in our penal laws even if these arose from
one incident. Thus, where a single act is directed against
one person but said act constitutes a violation of two or
more entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law, or
by a special law and the Re-

_______________

37  133 Phil. 295; 24 SCRA 163 (1968).

38  Id., at p. 305; pp. 171-172.

283
 VOL. 756, APRIL 20, 2015 283
Asistio vs. People

vised Penal Code, as in this case, the prosecution

against one is not an obstacle to the prosecution of the
other.39
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
DENIED, and the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated August
31, 2011 and its Resolution dated Jan. 31, 2012 in C.A.-
G.R. CR No. 32363, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin,** Villarama, Jr.

and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.—The power to prosecute includes the initial

discretion to determine who should be utilized by the
government as a state witness. (People vs. Fajardo, Jr., 512
SCRA 360 [2007])
The principle of double jeopardy finds no application in
administrative cases. (Cayao-Lasam vs. Ramolete, 574
SCRA 439 [2008])
——o0o——

_______________

39  People v. Pat, 324 Phil. 723, 737; 254 SCRA 436, 448 (1996), citing
People v. Tiozon, G.R. No. 89823, June 19, 1991, 198 SCRA 368, 379,
citing People v. Doriguez, id.
* * Designated acting member, in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H.
Jardeleza, per Raffle dated September 10, 2014.

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.